View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0022478 | AI War 2 | Gameplay Idea | Jan 2, 2020 7:54 am | Jan 2, 2020 2:55 pm | |
| Reporter | Iocaine | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | closed | Resolution | won't fix | ||
| Product Version | BETA 1.1 So Much Stuff We Can't Even, But More Is Still Coming | ||||
| Summary | 0022478: Bay sizes to replace random ship number variation | ||||
| Description | As it stands, ship number variance can be frustratingly random. After some discussion on Discord earlier, I roughed out the following framework for a potential rework to both remove that arbitrary variation and allow for some interesting nuance to different carrier vessels. Rather than having a 1-ship Siege Frigate line right next to a 2-ship Siege Frigate line in the next bay over for no apparent reason, remove the numbers from ship lines altogether. Instead, carrier ships would have bay sizes, and the player would assign a line to a bay of their choosing, which then determines the number of ships that may be produced and fielded. For example, the aforementioned Siege Frigate in a Small bay would be a 1-ship line, whereas the same Siege Frigate based in a Large bay might be a 2- or 3-ship line. Not only does this remove the frustrating randomness from ship line acquisition, it replaces it with a layer of strategic decision-making on the player's part. Additionally, it provides another way to differentiate carrier ships from one another. Maybe that wiry, slender Orchid Ark has fewer large bays than a Voidhome. Maybe the stock carriers have more large and medium bays, because they don't give up internal volume to combat systems. This could also help rein in the Fleet Capacity Extenders' effect on already-large lines. Instead of increasing the line, let it change a Small or Medium bay to the next size up, but disallow its use on Large bays (as there's nothing larger to upgrade it to). | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
I love this idea. |
|
|
I can see the appeal, but this would be such a titanic change that I can't see a way not to break all savegames. And it feels like we'd run into really super bland sameyness after a while. I also feel like if people get to resize their things that they find by switching them between different carriers, then they will be minmaxing in highly destructive ways that are not fun or balanced. I do hear you on the fact that randomized ship lines can be confusing to new folks in general, and that is something I'd prefer to fix if given the chance. Mechanically it balances out the way that I'd want, more or less, at the moment, but clarity could be improved for decision making even for long-term players. Essentially a ship line does need to be "you get what you get, and moving it between transports doesn't change what it is." But "what is the quality of what I got compared to what this line normally could be" is certainly a question. The simplest thing would simply be to make it so that there is no more randomness in the ship lines, and maybe we introduce some more ship lines of v-wings or whatever. That trends back towards blandness, but doesn't break savegames or allow people to minmax destructively. |
|
|
"randomized ship lines can be confusing to new folks in general, and that is something I'd prefer to fix if given the chance. Mechanically it balances out the way that I'd want, more or less, at the moment, but clarity could be improved for decision making even for long-term players. Essentially a ship line does need to be "you get what you get, and moving it between transports doesn't change what it is." But "what is the quality of what I got compared to what this line normally could be" is certainly a question." https://bugtracker.arcengames.com/view.php?id=22476 |
|
|
I would argue that it's harder to minmax in the system I was proposing than in the existing one. As it is now, I can either get lucky or do a few rerolls and end up with a ship that's got five 'good' rolls for the number of ships in its given bay. If a carrier had, say, 1 large, 2 medium, and 2 small bays, it would no longer be possible to cram it all in. Instead, it would become a choice of which of the various ships at my disposal are more important to me aboard this ship. The main downside I see is that you could abuse the custom flagship build system to just use one large bay per flagship, but that could be avoided easily enough by giving the built flagships a crappy bay layout, since they're mass-produced trash. As for breaking savegames, that's a concern, yes, but as long as there's advanced warning before save-breaking patch, I'm of the opinion it should be a secondary issue. |
|
|
After a lot of internal discussion and reflecting on why we have the systems in place we do now -- why it was designed to be highly randomized -- I've decided not to go down this route. The randomness of what you find, and making use of that, is a key component of this game. The bay sizes concept either removes that, or else it's just modifying things heavily to wind up with the same end result. It either isn't getting rid of the randomness and thus isn't doing much, or it is and thus is defeating the purpose of the randomness. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 2, 2020 7:54 am | Iocaine | New Issue | |
| Jan 2, 2020 7:55 am | Iocaine | Description Updated | |
| Jan 2, 2020 8:00 am | Fluffiest | Note Added: 0055245 | |
| Jan 2, 2020 9:26 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0055250 | |
| Jan 2, 2020 9:49 am | Fluffiest | Note Added: 0055253 | |
| Jan 2, 2020 2:19 pm | BadgerBadger | Relationship added | related to 0022476 |
| Jan 2, 2020 2:40 pm | Iocaine | Note Added: 0055274 | |
| Jan 2, 2020 2:55 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Jan 2, 2020 2:55 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => closed |
| Jan 2, 2020 2:55 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => won't fix |
| Jan 2, 2020 2:55 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0055277 |
